Beren and Lúthien - Changes needed

[Findegil]

First of all: Elvellon, I am glad to have your input here as everywhere. But here it is very welcome indeed, since my talent for rhyming is very limited.

Nonetheless, I have to argue against some of your suggestions.
A general remark first: The argument that what we have here is one of the “songs of Númenor”, has come up in some discussions. For me, it does not hold water for several reasons:
- That a poem or text has be traditioned by the Numenorians does not mean that the in-story author was of mankind. I would argue here to the contrary, since the mannish origin of the Narn was mentioned as an exception. (Nonetheless, later mannish redactions is of course possible.)
- Even so the main line of tradition might be Númenorean, it is by no means impossible that additional sources are involved. Such as eyewitnesses talked to in Imladris.
But these in-story arguments are in a way pointless, because the main counter arguments for me are external:
- Some time ago the project discussed if we should assume that our texts have existing counterparts in Middle-earth. And the final result of that discussion was that we could not entertain that idea at all. Tolkien could and did use that idea and thus produce the large corpus of sources we have. But since we decided that we can only hope to produce one single string of very diverse texts telling the Legend of Middle-earth, we have to skip that idea.
Therefore if the result of our editing does not have an existing counterpart in Middle-earth, it does as well not have a history of in-story tradition.
- If we follow the argument that due to its tradition a texts is allowed some failures to its ultimate end, we render our project void and useless. It is no question that a character in the story must not speak the truth, but that is not the point here. If we accept that the texts, we produce have a tradition behind them that allows for them make false statements about what we found as the ‘true’ story, we would have to give our readers some means to find out were these false statements begin and end. That mean would be the full corpus of sources we used. What than is the worth of the text we produced?
- This does not mean, that we can not leave some uncertainty in our version or that we can not use parts that Tolkien did mention with a disclaimer (like the second prophecy of Mandos). But it clearly means we have to take up all such disclaimers, and were we don’t have them we should try to report what we find as the ‘true’-story as well as possible.

Now to the more specific issue:

Line [1241]: First, since line numbers may change, let’s take up an editing mark for this case: BL-RG-00.7. On the case itself, I agree that it was maybe a bit over the top to change each and every occurrence of ‘magic’. Nonetheless for me it has a kind of negative connotation, following the discussion of it between Galadriel and Sam in Lothlorien. Thus it seem inappropriate for a description of a work of craft that seems to appeal to the author. What about getting rid of the means ({magic}[craft]) and instead mention who (masons) used these means:

A vault of topless trees it seemed, {995}
whose trunks of carven stone there stood
like towers of an enchanted wood [1240]
BL-RG-00.7 {in magic }[by masons] fast for ever bound,
bearing a roof whose branches wound
in endless tracery of green {1000}
lit by some leaf-emprisoned sheen
of moon and sun, and wrought of gems, [1245]
and each leaf hung on golden stems.

BL-RG-08.5: Elvellon’s first suggestion with the ‘spark‘-‘dark‘ couple is still my favorite. The ‘gloom’-‘doom’ couple is nice in itself, but is it the doom of the Noldor that they approach going to central square in Tirion? I don’t think so. Aiwendil’s ‘kin’-‘city in’ is to archaic to me. The ‘that folk’-‘twilights cloak’ couple is as well to my liking. I don’t think the metaphor ‘twilight’s cloak’ is to much artistical license. We are dealing with a poem, some freeness must be granted.

BL-SL-03: ‘Apologies if I'm retreading settled ground.’ I don’t think you do, and even if, we have done so before and we will most probably do so in future. The discussion is what brings the project forward. (And often it is the fun of it, not the (temporary) final result.)
‘We're reading a Mannish text, and we know Men thought of the Valar as gods, right?’ Wrong, in two ways: We do not read a mannish text (see my remark above). At best we rad a text edited by man. And the man that thought of the Valar as gods where not the Númenoreans. At first they did know better, being in alliance with the Elves, and later when they rebelled against the Valar, I doubt that they would name them gods, since who would rebel against gods? Anyhow I have to say that using ‘god’ in this context is a no go for me. We can tell our readers that man did name the Valar gods, but to have a group of elvish Exiles address them as such does not work for me. That the Nargothrondrim are Exiles makes these lines anyhow doubt full: They did rebel against the rule of the Valar in the first place, so what would it help, if Finrod would be a Vala?
But I understand the urge to keep the lines. So I searched form some replacement with the one characteristic that could transport the meaning of god like ruler ship: infalliblity. Even so I did not find a solution for the couple, this might by a line of thought worth mentioning.

BL-EX-10: I like your suggestion. In the first part you did edit it more but less so in the last. But as it is ‘grist for the mill’ I would try to leave out the ‘reek’ and use instead the couple ‘seek’-‘indeed’. For that of course we need some additions. I would not use ‘Silmaril’ again here, therefore ‘one stone’ was the best I could come up with. In the next line ‘solemn quest’ is as well the best I found. I had first considered ‘hopeless quest’ but Finrod just declared that he sees that Beren will get it, so that this should give him some hope. Farther on I would like to now why you moved the ‘shall’ in the third last line? I think the line works without that movement.

BL-EX-10 <GA{'}But {this I will say to you,}lastly, ere he bade farewell, [2155]
spoke Finrod: ‘{Celegorn}[Celegorm] the fell,
I say, by the sight {that is given me in }this hour received,
no Silmaril shall be retrieved
by{, that neither} thou nor any {son of Fëanor shall regain the Silmarils}kin or friend,
for ever unto world's end. [u] [2160]
[/b]And this one stone, that we now seek
in solemn quest, shall come indeed{ },
but never to your hands will fall.
Nay, your oath shall devour {you}all
of Fëanor’s sons, and deliver then [2165]
to {other keeping}another the bride-price of Lúthien.'>

Clean text:

But lastly, ere he bade farewell, 2155
spoke Finrod: ‘Celegorm the fell,
I say, by the sight this hour received,
no Silmaril shall be retrieved
by thou nor any kin or friend,
for ever unto world's end. 2160
And this one stone, that we now seek
in solemn quest, shall come indeed,
but never to your hands will fall.
Nay, your oath shall devour all
of Fëanor’s sons, and deliver then 2165
to another the bride-price of Lúthien.'

BL-RG-22: I like your suggestion. But why do you change {neither}[not]?

BL-EX-10.5: I like your suggestion, but aren’t your first three lines each one syllable short? What about {none}no one in the first line and ‘perceiving that evil would follow’ for the second? I have no good solution for the third, but ‘heavily’ would be a last resource.
Maybe my counting is wrong, but isn’t Curufin 3 syllables (Cu-ru-fin)? If so that line is too long. But however the line can stand since we count iambic feet and not syllables propper.

Line [3277]: Thanks for pointing that out!

Respectfully
Findegil